Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

The dataset is a CSV file that includes the yes/no and multiple choice questions used in the paper by Driscoll et al, published in Conservation Letters in 2020. Each row represents a de-identified respondent, and not text responses are included in the dataset to ensure no risk to anonymity of the survey respondents. The columns are labelled by question number (eg. Q1 etc), and this aligns with the questions in Appendix S1 of Driscoll et al 2020 Conservation Letters. The questions are repeated below. No. Question Sub-question Q1 Which statement best describes your attitude towards the role of scientists in public policy debates and advocacy? Q2 Which one of the following would you consider to be the minimum necessary for you to be knowledgeable enough about a topic to enable you to make public commentary? Q3 Have you ever experienced ‘undue modification’ to your work by your organisation, such as substantive changes to a text or story that downplays, masks, or misleads about environmental impacts? Q4 Please indicate for which kinds of communications you have experienced ‘undue modification’. (Select all that apply) Q5 Have you ever been prohibited by your organisation from providing public communication in regard to a matter about which you are knowledgeable? Q6 Please indicate which kinds of communication you have been prohibited from providing. (Select all that apply) Q7 Which option below best describes your general view about how the constraints on public commentary by scientists has changed over recent years. Q8 Do you consider that the current constraints on communication in your workplace are excessive? Q9 Do you believe written policies that require approval of public communications is reasonable? Q10 Please briefly explain your reasons Q11 Please indicate which topic areas you have experienced constraints on communication, in mainstream or social media. (check only those options that are applicable) "Constraints on communication" refers to any pressure applied to deter public or political engagement, provision of information or comment in areas that you are knowledgeable. Q12 Have you ever ‘opted-out’ or otherwise practiced self-censorship by refraining from making a contribution to public information or debate, despite there being a clear opportunity to do so? Q13 Please indicate for which kinds of communications you have ever ‘opted-out’ (Select all that apply) Q14 To what degree do you feel that the following sources of influence constrain your public commentary in areas that you are knowledgeable? "Public commentary" refers to any information contributed in interviews with media and media statements or editorials, including social media. By "knowledgeable" we mean having enough knowledge to be able to make a professionally informed contribution to public debate. Q15 Where you have been blocked or have refrained from public commentary, what consequences do you think there were (Select all that apply) Q16 Have you ever felt so conflicted by constraints on public commentary or peer communication that your job satisfaction was affected? Q17 Please briefly explain how this affected your job satisfaction Q18 Have you ever been harassed or criticised for your public or peer communications related to issues about which you are “knowledgeable”? Q19 Was the source of this harassment or criticism a person or entity which had either a political or economic interest in undermining you, or the information you provided? Q20 Did your organisation (or higher level staff within the organisation) publicly defend you? Q21 Have you ever covertly provided information or comment due to concerns about freedom to communicate publicly yourself? Q22 What is (or was) your main occupation? Q23 How do you identify?